Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the sixth report of 2022 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTI ON OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 6 OF 2022

27 October 2022

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock

Senator Paul Scarr

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 6 OF 2022

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 October 2022 at 7.21 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

27 October 2022

Appendix 1

Name of Bill:

Environment and Other Legislation (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various Stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Nov —March

Possible reporting date:

31 March 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add: ", and:

(a) in respect of the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2022; and

(b) in respect of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2022".

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Greens will be supporting the government's amendments to the Selection of Bills Committee report, and I flag that we will also be moving an amendment, once these amendments have been tabled.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Equally, I flag that we will also be moving an amendment. I move an amendment that will amend the amendment that has been moved by Senator Chisolm in respect to part (b) of the motion:

At the end of the motion, add:

in respect of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on 10 February 2023"

My change reflects a change of committee—the Education and Employment Legislation Committee—for a reporting date of 10 February 2023, as per the amendment circulated.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the government's amendment but also to respond to the amendments just flagged by the opposition. If you ever wanted to see that the Liberal Party and National Party were wedded to low wages as a design feature of the Australian economy, you see that again in this. They don't even want to deal with a bill that, at its heart, recognises that we've got to get wages moving again in this country. But do they want to debate the bill? No, they want to defer the Senate consideration of legislation which is all about trying to get wages moving again. You are so wedded to low wages as a design feature of the economy that you're even trying to defer legislation which this government clearly has a mandate for. We are very happy to have a proper inquiry, but let us be clear. We know what a 1 March date means in terms of legislation—

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, a 10 February date—we know you want to defer it until next year. I think anybody in this country who remembers Senator Cormann's declaration that low wages are a design feature of the Australian economy knows that that was the policy under the coalition government. Here today, yet again, we see how slavishly they are wedded to that proposition, in wanting to defer a bill for which this government has a very clear mandate—it's not as if this wasn't clearly discussed in the election—and which is needed for our economy, particularly for low-paid men and women throughout this country who are battling inflation and battling rising costs of living at a time when they have experienced wage stagnation for years under those opposite. So, when the opposition come in here and ask questions about the cost of living, let everybody remember what they are trying to defer is changes to our industrial relations system which have, at their core, a desire to get wages moving again. So I would say to the Senate: don't give them that. They have to learn that people in this country, workers in this country not only want but are entitled to a better deal than they had under Scott Morrison and the coalition.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Birmingham, I remind all senators it is particularly disorderly to call out when you are not in your correct seat.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's proposal for the inquiry into this legislation is for an obscenely short inquiry, obscenely rushed, and shows that this Labor government are scared of any fair dinkum scrutiny into their industrial relations proposals. They have just released this bill today, and they are seeking to push it through the Senate inquiry process in a matter of weeks. If you look at the Senate sitting calendar, when you look at estimates and other considerations, they're only effectively allowing three or four working days for any potential hearings to take place. We know they won't of course use those days; there'd be the last few days before the committee reports. So what opportunity will Australian small businesses have to get their heads around the legislative proposals of this government? What opportunity will they have to take time out of their businesses and make a submission? What opportunity will they have to appear before an inquiry and put their views and concerns about this legislation? The answer to that is: bugger all! They will have bugger all opportunity in terms of giving fair dinkum evidence, analysis and advice to the Senate about this legislation.

The government are clearly scared of scrutiny around these reforms. They're scared of allowing proper, reasonable scrutiny. If the government's reporting date is adopted by the Senate, this will be one of the shortest, most rushed processes for industrial relations reform in living memory. This will be rushed through faster and quicker than any comparable reforms we have seen, with less scrutiny, less time for senators and, most importantly, less time for Australian businesses.

Why does this matter? Because these types of reforms will matter about whether we have an economy where businesses have more confidence or less confidence to employ Australians. We already know from the hapless budget handed down by this government earlier this week that unemployment in Australia is forecast to go up under Labor. We already know there are forecast to be more Australians losing their jobs over the next year under this government. Reforms such as this run the risk of worsening that problem. They run the risk that if they get it wrong—as it appears, from the concerns of many parts of business, they might—we will have a situation where Australian businesses, particularly small businesses, will be even more hesitant to employ more Australians. If businesses are concerned about employing Australians, that means fewer Australians in work, more Australians on unemployment benefits and fewer Australians with the opportunity to get ahead. Lord knows they need every helping hand they can get in terms of work opportunities to get ahead at present. With the inflationary environment, with this government's broken promises in relation to energy prices, with this government's threat hanging over the heads of Australian workers in terms of increased taxes in the future, Australians need all the help they can get to get secure work and have certainty but to do it in an environment where those jobs exist. They only exist if businesses and small businesses are hiring.

The government claims these reforms in this bill were largely cooked up at its jobs summit, but we know that small businesses were largely absent from the jobs summit.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Plenty of union people!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator O'Sullivan—plenty of union representatives at the jobs summit. We know from all the evidence that Mr Burke and others sit down with the unions quite frequently. They have been there at the drafting table, no doubt, day in and day out, preparing this legislation.

But this is not a debate about the substance of the legislation; this is a debate about whether or not proper process is followed, and those opposite don't want to follow the established processes. This is a highly unusual process they're proposing to rush through the inquiry in an abnormally short period of time. The opposition's amendment simply ensures we have a normal period of time, and then the government can bring the legislation forward for normal debate in the early part of next year as would be customary, not seek to ram it through as they are proposing. I urge the crossbench in particular to support the opposition's amendment to ensure— (Time expired)

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is clearly really important legislation for Australians, particularly workers in areas such as nursing, frontline workers who have not seen wage increases and who are feeling the pinch when it comes to inflation and the cost of living, with electricity prices forecast to go up more. This is really important for us to consider as a Senate. I am very supportive of a number of the measures in this enormous piece of legislation. However, I think it's really important that the Senate has time to consider this, as good as the ideas in the legislation are.

To be clear, I've not seen the legislation. The crossbench has had no opportunity to see it in detail. Those who have had an opportunity to see the legislation have signed nondisclosure agreements. This is brand-new legislation, with a reporting date of a few weeks. It doesn't make sense to me to give crossbench senators a couple of weeks to get across this and to give small business owners who are under the pump a short period of time to do so. Elements of this bill would have huge consequences for our industrial relations laws in Australia. I asked the Parliamentary Library to look at the length of reporting dates for industrial relations reform in Australia, all the way back to Work Choices in 2005 and this sort of reporting date is unprecedented in terms of industrial relations. So I have real concerns about having such a short reporting date.

I have put to the government that I believe there are parts of this big omnibus bill that potentially don't need as long to consider—parts of it around putting gender equity into the Fair Work Act, equal renumeration, the two new expert panels, banning pay secrecy clauses, and the BOOT reforms, which people have known about; there seems to be general consensus. But other elements of the bill are new to many and I think warrant our consideration.

I have circulated an amendment that would allow us to have more time, but I'm certainly open to talking to the government about ensuring that we deal with this legislation in a timely way but also allow the oversight that these committee hearings provide. Being new to this place and having been involved in the committee process for a few bills now, I find quite incredible the access to experts and the ideas that come up, and the genuine consultation, as well as the very collegiate way senators engage to improve legislation.

Given that we haven't seen any details of this bill, given how big it is and, crucially, how important this is to Australians and the future of workers and small businesses in Australia, I would really like the government to ensure that we get the balance right between legislating in a timely manner and having time to really look at the detail, to engage with the various stakeholders and, ultimately, to legislate very important reforms that are needed, that are warranted when wages for many Australians are back at 2008 levels.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, blow me over: if this doesn't reek of union all over it, I don't know what does. You've got to be kidding! You're doing an omnibus on IR laws! The whole time I've been up here, with these omnibuses, what did you say? These omnibuses have got to go. So what do you do with some of the most important things that need to be done over the next term of parliament? What do you do with these IR laws that need to be looked at properly? You roll them into an omnibus and try to run that bus down the bloody hill. That is what is going on here.

I will not be doing this. How am I going to speak to my businesses in Tasmania? I haven't even seen the bill. We haven't seen it. These are going to be some of the most crucial and important decisions we are going to make for the future when it comes to IR, and you're trying to shove them down our throats? Seriously? If this is the way it is going to go, goodness me, this is just not going to function well up here, I can assure you. I need time to go and have a look at that bill—for the first time. I need to go and use the small number of staff I now have left to try to dissect that bill, and if you think I can do that in a few weeks, I don't know what planet you are living on. Oh, that's right—you're living on the planet of the unions. I can tell you: it is not going to happen. It is not going to happen over this bill or any other important bill you put up in the future and you want to ram down our throats. You will not get that vote. You will not get it.

If you want this done a little bit quicker, great, give our staff back. That's fine. In the meantime, with the few staff we have left, keep wearing them down so we get a revolving door of staff, which makes it worse. But there is no way—no way!—that reporting date is happening this year. I'm sorry for those guys out there who expect pay rises and all the rest. I apologise to you. But, when it comes to the Jacqui Lambie Network, I have stipulated that we will not vote on anything in this parliament without putting it under the microscope. If you don't give us time to digest things and put them under that microscope, you will never, ever get our vote. We will just vote against you. So here is a very clear reminder of how we operate up here. This is what the Tasmanian people expect from me, and I will give them nothing less.

This needs to go to a Senate inquiry. There are going to be, I imagine, a lot of people putting in submissions to this, which we will also have to go through. The amount of time that you have given us to do that is absolutely shameful. It is shameful with regard to the people you are trying to get wages for, and it is shameful with regard to small business, who have been through two years of COVID and are struggling to keep their doors open still. You're not doing this to my small businesses down there in Tasmania, because that's who we rely on. We need their doors open. We are not rushing this legislation.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This rushed inquiry has got nothing to do with workers; it's got everything to do with union bosses. Let me tell you why. With the exception of senators like Deborah O'Neill, Tony Sheldon and Glenn Sterle, the Labor Party no longer represents workers. I've been pushing an issue about casual miners in the Hunter Valley and in Central Queensland for three years. I've been misrepresented by Labor and the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley, to put people off the scent. Thanks to Senator Barbara Pocock, we're starting to get some traction. She's now aware of what's going on in the Hunter Valley. Labor has not been at all interested in fixing that problem. They don't even want to recognise the problem. I've raised it with Senator Ayres. Nothing to see here. I've raised it with Senator Sheldon, who said he would like to help, but couldn't. I appreciate that, Senator Sheldon.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, I've given you some leeway, but we are debating motions before the chair. Thank you, I'll ask you to—

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am too.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, it is not a debating point with me; I'm the President. We are looking at the timing put forward in the motion by Senator Ruston on the committee of bills report. That is what you need to confine your remarks too.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I will say, again, is that the Labor Party has not been genuine here. This is a complex bill. We know some people in the senate have seen it. We have not. Why not? Has Senator Lambie seen it? No. She said she hadn't. Why are some people getting it and not others? This is a complex bill that needs to be done properly for the workers of this country. This is about union bosses making sure that donations get back to the Labor Party. That's why we need a thorough inquiry to assess the benefits for workers and to give small businesses an opportunity to comment, and so that we can all have proper scrutiny of the bill. I will be supporting the Liberal-National coalition on this. I will not be voting for the Labor Party rushing this through the chamber.

I want to make a comment again, to emphasise that the climate change bill was in the hands of the Greens and Senator Pocock for weeks before we even saw it. Why? Now we have the Greens justifying it, but my point is that this bill needs solid scrutiny for the benefit of small business and workers.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it will assist the chamber in a more streamlined approach to the reporting date for this particular important bill, the coalition will withdraw its amendment for the reporting date being 10 February. In doing so, we indicate that we will support Senator Pocock's motion, which requires the reporting date to be the first day of the second sitting week of 2023.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assume you were seeking leave to withdraw, Senator Ruston?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Leave granted.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first day of the second sitting week in 2023"

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief. It is deeply disappointing that the government and the Greens have combined to block fair dinkum scrutiny of this legislation. We note the only proposal left on the table to actually have any Senate inquiry at all is to have this rushed, curtailed inquiry that is being forced upon the Senate by the Labor Party and the Greens with complete disregard to the interests of Australian small businesses or the opportunities for those businesses to be heard, and heard properly, or indeed the opportunities for crossbench senators and others to give proper, serious consideration to this legislation.

Let it fall upon the government's head if those senators come back to this place, when they seek to rush this legislation through in the final two sitting weeks, and those senators say, 'We haven't had a chance to properly consider it,' or, 'Business tells us they haven't had a proper chance consider it.' Let it be on your heads, Labor Party and Greens, if the consequence when it comes to your legislation being considered is that the message is that there hasn't been time, there hasn't been proper consideration, and that the voices of Australian small businesses are emphatically, 'We haven't had a chance to get across the detail of it.' However, some inquiry is better than no inquiry and so, despite the opposition's deep reservations about this rushed inquiry, we will give those who have the chance the opportunity to participate in at least getting their voices heard, but we know this will be woefully inadequate, and it all hangs and sits on the Labor Party's heads.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Chisolm, be agreed to.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I ask that part A and part B be put separately?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Senator Ruston's request, I am now going to move part A of the amendment. The question is that part A of the amendment moved by Senator Chisolm be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that part B of the amendment moved by Senator Chisolm be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment as circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 2022".

For the assistance of senators, this is an amendment that seeks to refer The Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 2022.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I seek leave to speak to this?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the time has expired. You could ask for leave but it is not my decision. It is the decision of the chamber. I am indicating to you that the hard marker for this bill, for this part of the day, has passed.

Leave not granted.

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator McKim, to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I get my name recorded as opposing the amendment, please?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be done.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I get my name recorded as well?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be done. The question is that the amended Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, adopted.